Madras High Court
Abdul Rasheed vs The Anjuman E Himayath E Islam on 25 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
Abdul Rasheed
.. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Anjuman E Himayath E Islam,
No.16, B.N.Reddy Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017.
2.Universal Sampo General Insurance Company Limited,
Capital Tower, 5th Floor, 'B' Wing,
No.554/555, Annasalai,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, praying to set aside the award dated
27.07.2015 and made in W.C.No.139 of 2014, on the file of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour - II, Chennai.
For Appellants : M/s.M.Malar
For Respondents : Shobana
for M/s.Srividya
No Appearance for R2
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner, who
filed W.C.No.139 of 2014, claiming compensation for the injury sustained by
him, in the accident happened on 10.04.2016, while he was employed as a
driver under the first respondent. On 10.04.2016, while the petitioner was
driving the auto bearing registration No.TN-09BC-8529, a Car came in a rash
and negligent manner and hit the auto, due to which the petitioner sustained
multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Hence, he claimed compensation
from his owner/first respondent and the vehicle was insured with the second
respondent. After full trial, the Commissioner of Labour awarded the
compensation. Without considering his salary, the award was also not passed
as per the Workmen Compensation Act, so he preferred this appeal. The
Insurance Company is contested the appeal.
2. Point for consideration:
"Whether the Commissioner of Labour was erred in fixing
salary of Rs.8,000/-, without considering the salary
certificate and also awarded the interest from the date of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
accident.
3. The facts reveal that the appellant as a driver, employed under
the first respondent met with an accident on 10.04.2014, during the course of
his employment while driving the auto belonging to the first respondent. The
first respondent also admits that the auto belongs to him and the appellant
was employed as a driver for a monthly salary of Rs.10,657/- along with batta
Rs.50/- per day. The vehicle was also insured at the time of the accident
under the second respondent and he prima facie proved his claim through the
documents Exs.P1 to P9. The employer relationship between the parties is
not in dispute and the accident was occurred during the course of his
employment and the insurance of the vehicle are all admitted facts. The main
objection of the appellant is that as per his salary certificate marked as Ex.P7,
he was given monthly salary of Rs.10,657/- along with batta of Rs.50/- per
day. But, the Commissioner of Labour erroneously fixed salary of Rs.8,000/-
only and awarded the compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
alleged salary certificate is a self serving document and it is not supported
with any other material evidence like salary register. So, the Commissioner of
Labour rightly fixed Rs.8,000/- as per the provisions of the Minimum Wages
Act.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.897 of 2018, wherein, it is held that as
per the G.O.2D.No.91, Labour and Employment Department, dated
12.12.2013, the minimum wages to be fixed as Rs.9,808/-. Admittedly, in the
case on hand, the accident was happened in the year 2014 after this G.O. So
the prevailing minimum wages at the time is Rs.9,808/- but the Commissioner
of Labour fixed only Rs.8,000/-. Therefore, the salary is enhanced to
Rs.9,808/-.
6. But, as per Section 4-(A)(2) of the Workmen Compensation
Act, the employer is bound to make provisional payment based on the extent
of liability, and he accepts the same as per Section 4-(A)(1) of Act,
compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. A
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
combined reading of said provision makes it clear that an employer is bound
to make even provisional payment also as soon as it falls due. The words as
soon as means, immediately after the accident, in which the workmen
sustains injuries or dies. However in the ratio laid down in 2010(2) TN MAC
80 DB consonance with the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v.Srinivas
Sabata and another, 1976 (1) SCC 289 and Kerala State Electricity Board
v. Valsala,K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC) held interest on compensation payable after
30 days from the date of accident. The compensation payable would be:
60/100x181.37xRs.9,808x45/100=Rs.4,80,297/-
7. As discussed above, it is very clear that the appellant is
entitled to the interest on the amount of compensation with effect from the
date of accident. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed, the 2 nd respondent is
directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, after 30 days from
the date of the accident till the date of realization as the award amount. The
amount shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
8. With regard to other findings, the order passed by the learned
Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, is confirmed. Accordingly the
appeal is allowed. No Costs.
25.02.2021
ub
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
C.M.A.No.1861 of 2015
http://www.judis.nic.in
